Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I spoke with my cousin who lives on the south side in Bridgeport near US Cellular (Comiskey), and he had a very simple yet interesting analysis of the Chicago's population drop. He said the city is basically gentrifying and becoming a "richer" city with more of the 1-2 person yuppie residences popping up in places that traditionally housed entire families. My cousin talked about how when he bought his 2 story row house, there was an entire family living there. My cousin and his wife have no children, and they rent the top floor to a single guy from Atlanta. That's 3 people in place of 6-7 previously living there. The other example he gave me is that the City has taken down over 120 public housing projects like Cabrini Green which were high rises that foster high population density. They've since been replaced with large lofty style condos & townhouses with garage parking, and patios. Therefore single yuppies and possibly couples, move into a space that previously housed 2 families of 5 or more.
I'd stop worrying about Chicago, it's changing and there is an overall "ethnic flight" heading out to the burbs. That's one thing comprehensive rail and lower COL in the burbs will do.
Its true that while the population of the city of Chicago has shrunk, the average income has risen, and is now above the national average. Its also important to note, that from 1950 to 2000, the number of HOUSEHOLDS in the city of Chicago has increased every decade. The data on households for 2010 is not out yet, but I'm guessing its increased over 2000.
So the overall trend is more but smaller households with more income. Ideally, overall population would also increase, but that's not a horrible trend.
I spoke with my cousin who lives on the south side in Bridgeport near US Cellular (Comiskey), and he had a very simple yet interesting analysis of the Chicago's population drop. He said the city is basically gentrifying and becoming a "richer" city with more of the 1-2 person yuppie residences popping up in places that traditionally housed entire families. My cousin talked about how when he bought his 2 story row house, there was an entire family living there. My cousin and his wife have no children, and they rent the top floor to a single guy from Atlanta. That's 3 people in place of 6-7 previously living there. The other example he gave me is that the City has taken down over 120 public housing projects like Cabrini Green which were high rises that foster high population density. They've since been replaced with large lofty style condos & townhouses with garage parking, and patios. Therefore single yuppies and possibly couples, move into a space that previously housed 2 families of 5 or more.
I'd stop worrying about Chicago, it's changing and there is an overall "ethnic flight" heading out to the burbs. That's one thing comprehensive rail and lower COL in the burbs will do.
The reduction in family sizes has had impacts all along, this coupled with the first suburban wave took many large old cities significantly down from their peaks
Even the shiney new downtown high-rises in these cities are not as populated as old tenemant houses, maybe 1.6 people per dwelling/unit versus 5 or 6 on average - that aspect is very true
Its true that while the population of the city of Chicago has shrunk, the average income has risen, and is now above the national average. Its also important to note, that from 1950 to 2000, the number of HOUSEHOLDS in the city of Chicago has increased every decade. The data on households for 2010 is not out yet, but I'm guessing its increased over 2000.
So the overall trend is more but smaller households with more income. Ideally, overall population would also increase, but that's not a horrible trend.
Right, you and I are saying the exact same thing. More but smaller households which tend to have a higher income. It's up for debate if you prefer the effect of smaller households or larger ones, but Chicago isn't really on the decline since larger poorer families are being replaced with higher income yuppie setups. If anything, the gentrification of Chicago's neighborhoods has created a better city overall, even if the total population has decreased.
The reduction in family sizes has had impacts all along, this coupled with the first suburban wave took many large old cities significantly down from their peaks
Even the shiney new downtown high-rises in these cities are not as populated as old tenemant houses, maybe 1.6 people per dwelling/unit versus 5 or 6 on average - that aspect is very true
I
Exactly my point. And consider who's more likely to contribute to the "vibrancy" of city life, those in the shiny new condos?? or those living in multi-generation bungalows? Personally, I think a good mix keeps a city alive, but I think in this case the population drop is not symptomatic of a dying city at all.
Exactly my point. And consider who's more likely to contribute to the "vibrancy" of city life, those in the shiny new condos?? or those living in multi-generation bungalows? Personally, I think a good mix keeps a city alive, but I think in this case the population drop is not symptomatic of a dying city at all.
If New York City and Detroit had a baby, you would get the Chicago of today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrlFlaUsa
Exactly my point. And consider who's more likely to contribute to the "vibrancy" of city life, those in the shiny new condos?? or those living in multi-generation bungalows? Personally, I think a good mix keeps a city alive, but I think in this case the population drop is not symptomatic of a dying city at all.
I disagree here. Chicago's southside almost looks no different than Detroit. Lucky for Chicago, it's core is more vibrant and alive than almost ever before, but people don't realize how much of the city is left outside of the core. There is a lot of land for redevelopment and hopefully the views of Chicago's other sides ease up and people are willing to move into those areas.
If New York City and Detroit had a baby, you would get the Chicago of today.
I disagree here. Chicago's southside almost looks no different than Detroit. Lucky for Chicago, it's core is more vibrant and alive than almost ever before, but people don't realize how much of the city is left outside of the core. There is a lot of land for redevelopment and hopefully the views of Chicago's other sides ease up and people are willing to move into those areas.
Well you are right that it's not all gumdrops and lollypops, but the gentrification that began in the core is radiating outward to the north, west, and south. However, the south side hasn't changed as quickly as the others.
If New York City and Detroit had a baby, you would get the Chicago of today.
I disagree here. Chicago's southside almost looks no different than Detroit. Lucky for Chicago, it's core is more vibrant and alive than almost ever before, but people don't realize how much of the city is left outside of the core. There is a lot of land for redevelopment and hopefully the views of Chicago's other sides ease up and people are willing to move into those areas.
I wouldnt say they look NO DIFFERENT. Thats a stretch. There are definitely places similar to Detroit but for the most part they dont look eactly the same.
I disagree here. Chicago's southside almost looks no different than Detroit. Lucky for Chicago, it's core is more vibrant and alive than almost ever before, but people don't realize how much of the city is left outside of the core. There is a lot of land for redevelopment and hopefully the views of Chicago's other sides ease up and people are willing to move into those areas.
Chicago's south side is a lot better than Detroit. You have to be pretty misinformed to make an ignorant statement like that.
I wouldnt say they look NO DIFFERENT. Thats a stretch. There are definitely places similar to Detroit but for the most part they dont look eactly the same.
mas23
Anyone who thinks that New York and Chicago have anything but superficial similarities has obviously never spent time in both cities. And Detroit? I won't even go there.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
